| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 43 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 97:06:46 |
| Calls: | 290 |
| Files: | 904 |
| Messages: | 76,468 |
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for >backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
...
news.software.nntp
and actually most of the code is from Jurgen Haible's excellent local mail- >and newsserver Hamster.[end quoted excerpt]
What is Scoring?
Scoring is the process of assigning a number between -9999 and +9999 to a >message by applying scoring rules to the message. A scoring rule usually >analyzes one header field of the message and if it this header field matches >a certain text, a score value is assigned. For example, you can create a >scoring rule that assign the highest score value +9999 to all messages that >have your email address in the From header field, so that your messages >always receive a score of +9999.
The score value is shown in the header list in green for positive scores
and in red for negative scores:
Note that the list of headers can be sorted by score (with or without >threading), so scoring can be used to visually organize and separate >important from unimportant messages.
...
Usenet articles are scored twice in Dialog. When you get headers in a
group the scoring rules are applied to the available, limited number of >headers, however when you retrieve the complete body of the message, the >message is scored again and this time all headers can be scored.
The scoring and action rules are stored together in one file, the score
file, which you can access by selecting Settings, Scoring and actions
from Dialog's main menu.
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what would it be like?
You could just use something like Mastodon, and move to the Fediverse.
You could just use something like Mastodon, and move to the Fediverse.
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
On 07/08/2024 16:32 George Musk <grgmusk@skiff.com> wrote:
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
I personally see no need for this. Usenet as it is is essentially "perfect."
The internet as a whole needs to be upgraded to something like HORNET to thwart governments from interfering with it.
On 8/7/24 20:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
You could just use something like Mastodon, and move to the Fediverse.
Mastodon / Fediverse isn't feature compatible.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, The Running Man wrote:
On 07/08/2024 16:32 George Musk <grgmusk@skiff.com> wrote:
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >>> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
I personally see no need for this. Usenet as it is is essentially "perfect." >>
The internet as a whole needs to be upgraded to something like HORNET to
thwart governments from interfering with it.
I agree! It is perfect and beautiful, and any problems can easily be dealt with client side. I guess if someone would press me for an option, I'd go with mailing lists. Also very good technology.
On 8/7/24 20:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
You could just use something like Mastodon, and move to the Fediverse.
Mastodon / Fediverse isn't feature compatible. Not the least of which
is that Usenet servers are local copies of things posted to servers.
[...]
It's relatively easy to link two disconnected NNTP networks with
something like a mag' tape in a station wagon. You can't do that with
very many networking technologies.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:52:14 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/7/24 20:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
You could just use something like Mastodon, and move to the Fediverse.
Mastodon / Fediverse isn't feature compatible.
It isn't limitation-compatible or bug-compatible either. It's a complete >rethinking of the way distributed social media is supposed to work.
On 2024-08-08, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/7/24 20:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:Every time I look at it, I get the feeling that mastodon/fediverse is a
You could just use something like Mastodon, and move to the Fediverse.Mastodon / Fediverse isn't feature compatible. Not the least of which
is that Usenet servers are local copies of things posted to servers.
half thought-out "hey wouldn't it be cool if ... " type thing that only
came about because people think "The Web" is synonymous with "The
Internet".
Or maybe it's just the marketing-speak on their websites ...
[...]
It's relatively easy to link two disconnected NNTP networks with
something like a mag' tape in a station wagon. You can't do that with
very many networking technologies.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tape
hurtling down the freeway :)
(or however that went)
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
* Machine-readable format specification to reduce ambiguity.
* Binary serialization rather than the complex text-based structures we
have in NNTP and the Usenet article format.
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
* Machine-readable format specification to reduce ambiguity.
Wikipedia:
|The "second-system effect" or "second-system syndrome" is the
|tendency of small, elegant, and successful systems to be
|succeeded by over-engineered, bloated systems, due to
|inflated expectations and overconfidence.
, see also:
"Things You Should Never Do, Part I". (April 6, 2000) - Joel Spolsky
The premise was a new protocol, if you want to critique that then I
suggest responding to the OP instead.
If it’s machine-readable protocol specs you disagree with then you’re >just plain wrong. They’re an extremely successful strategy and ought to
be used even more widely than they already are.
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
If it’s machine-readable protocol specs you disagree with then you’re >>just plain wrong. They’re an extremely successful strategy and ought to >>be used even more widely than they already are.
Here's the syntax from RFC 3977. It's already pretty machine-readable
and quite straightforward:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 19:13:00 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
I mean something like ASN.1 ...
Bloody hell.
Where’s the garlic ...
Gentle reminder of the full text:
| I mean something like ASN.1 (although not ASN.1; far more complex
| than necessary).
ASN.1 is given as an example because it’s a well-known example of an interface definition language, not because I’m suggesting using it,
as anyone capable of reading to the end of a sentence can tell.
In comp.misc Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 19:13:00 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
I mean something like ASN.1 ...
Bloody hell.
Where’s the garlic ...
Gentle reminder of the full text:
| I mean something like ASN.1 (although not ASN.1; far more complex
| than necessary).
ASN.1 is given as an example because it’s a well-known example of an
interface definition language, not because I’m suggesting using it,
as anyone capable of reading to the end of a sentence can tell.
Do note you are respondig to Lawrence. He exists soley to create
turmoil and strife. So if halting his reading comprehension at the
first part of your sentence would generate maximum turmoil and strife,
then that is just exactly what he will do.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:32:01 -0000 (UTC)
George Musk wrote:
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
Not for nothing, but Secure Scuttlebutt is a pretty cool "next gen
NNTP" option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Scuttlebutt
--
AndyK
On 17/08/2024 16:49 "Andy K." <andy.k466@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:32:01 -0000 (UTC)
George Musk wrote:
Just a thought experiment:Not for nothing, but Secure Scuttlebutt is a pretty cool "next gen
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >>> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
NNTP" option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Scuttlebutt
Digitally signing all content makes it trivial for autocratic regimes to ascribe everything
you've ever said online.
And it gives us maximum control over what we see or avoid. No pictures. . .
What bothers me is that otherwise smart people have replaced usenet with >Facebook.
On 8/15/24 7:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:11:43 -0000 (UTC), Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
supposed to work.
Usenet is not social media.
ObDevilsAdvocate: Usenet is the original social medium.
+1
And it gives us maximum control over what we see or avoid. No pictures or -- god forbid -- reels, but that's a good thing. The bad thing about reels is that they're addictive time-wasters.
Absolutely. And the centralization introduced by the web-based successors
(at least the proprietary ones) is a definite step back.
What bothers me is that otherwise smart people have replaced usenet with Facebook. Maybe X too, but I don't read that even if I have an account. How hard can it be to do all three? The 'social media' make actual conversation, as opposed to post-it notes, difficult. I "know" the people I've known on usenet since 1995. I've met some of them IRL. FB people, unless friends of friends, are unknown strangers, just groups of words without names.
And don't get me started about Nextdoor...
It's sort of like facebook, but divided into neighborhoods
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:32:01 -0000 (UTC)
George Musk wrote:
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
Not for nothing, but Secure Scuttlebutt is a pretty cool "next gen
NNTP" option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Scuttlebutt
On 8/17/24 12:45 PM, D wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, The Real Bev wrote:
What bothers me is that otherwise smart people have replaced usenet
with Facebook. Maybe X too, but I don't read that even if I have
an account. How hard can it be to do all three? The 'social
media' make actual conversation, as opposed to post-it notes,
difficult. I "know" the people I've known on usenet since 1995.
I've met some of them IRL. FB people, unless friends of friends,
are unknown strangers, just groups of words without names.
And don't get me started about Nextdoor...
What is this nextdoor thing? I have heard about it on usenet, but I
think it must be some US thing that has not yet reached europe.
It's sort of like facebook, but divided into neighborhoods (literal neighborhoods, maybe 1 mile or so in diameter). It's clunkier than
facebook, but there's local stuff that makes it kind of useful --
especially since the local newspaper now has ONE page of actual local
news if we're lucky.
What is this nextdoor thing? I have heard about it on usenet, but I think
it must be some US thing that has not yet reached europe.
It's sort of like facebook, but divided into neighborhoods (literal neighborhoods, maybe 1 mile or so in diameter). It's clunkier than facebook, but there's local stuff that makes it kind of useful -- especially since the local newspaper now has ONE page of actual local news if we're lucky. I would guess that half the participants have never used a computer, just a phone, and have very little comprehension of how the world actually works. I really didn't realize how stupid people could be until I subscribed. It's all over the US, and will probably invade Europe soon.
As for fb, I am hearing more and more people who decrease their amount of
fb:ing or just stopped using it altogether except planning childrens
activities or so.
With filters and the Social Fixer extension for Firefox and Chrome I've made it as much like usenet as possible. I only see posts from friends (100 or so, mostly from usenet), friends of friends, and groups that I'm interested in. No ads, no posts that FB thinks I might be interested in.
The good thing about usenet is that you 'meet' random people who are probably interested in the same kinds of things that you are, aren't stupid, and aren't a waste of time. Yeahyeahyeah, a lot of loons, but they're easy to weed out and there aren't as many as there used to be.
'Reels' (short videos) have just started showing up, and they're tempting time-wasters. I don't regret seeing Simone Biles' performances though -- and I wouldn't have if somebody hadn't brought them to my attention.
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, The Real Bev wrote:
And don't get me started about Nextdoor...
What is this nextdoor thing? I have heard about it on usenet, but I
think it must be some US thing that has not yet reached europe.
A more perfect netnews:
o Automatic rejection of top-posted articles.
o Severe penalties for exceeding 72 characters.
o Automatic elision of "LOL", "ROTFL", "LMAO" etc.
o Life-time ban for using an emoji.
--bks
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, The Real Bev wrote:
What is this nextdoor thing? I have heard about it on usenet, but
I think it must be some US thing that has not yet reached europe.
It's sort of like facebook, but divided into neighborhoods (literal
neighborhoods, maybe 1 mile or so in diameter). It's clunkier than
facebook, but there's local stuff that makes it kind of useful --
especially since the local newspaper now has ONE page of actual
local news if we're lucky. I would guess that half the participants
have never used a computer, just a phone, and have very little
comprehension of how the world actually works. I really didn't
realize how stupid people could be until I subscribed. It's all
over the US, and will probably invade Europe soon.
Ahh, I see. Seems very logical since the local press is almost gone.
I can really see the reason for it existing. As you say, I would not
be surprised at all if it pops up in europe soon.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, The Real Bev wrote:
And don't get me started about Nextdoor...
What is this nextdoor thing? I have heard about it on usenet, but I
think it must be some US thing that has not yet reached europe.
It reached Europe years ago, just not all of it. The European countries
it operates in are the UK, Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Spain,
Sweden and Denmark.
In comp.misc D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, The Real Bev wrote:
What is this nextdoor thing? I have heard about it on usenet, but
I think it must be some US thing that has not yet reached europe.
It's sort of like facebook, but divided into neighborhoods (literal
neighborhoods, maybe 1 mile or so in diameter). It's clunkier than
facebook, but there's local stuff that makes it kind of useful --
especially since the local newspaper now has ONE page of actual
local news if we're lucky. I would guess that half the participants
have never used a computer, just a phone, and have very little
comprehension of how the world actually works. I really didn't
realize how stupid people could be until I subscribed. It's all
over the US, and will probably invade Europe soon.
Ahh, I see. Seems very logical since the local press is almost gone.
I can really see the reason for it existing. As you say, I would not
be surprised at all if it pops up in europe soon.
Do keep in mind that you *do not* get the equivalent of the "local
press" (as in news papers). You don't get stories on what the local government board is proposing (unless it also gores someone's ox, and
they then complain about their ox being gored by the local board on nextdoor). Or other typical 'stories' you'd get from an actual local newspaper (if it existed).
From what I've heard from folks around me that are members, what you
get is a local gossip channel, with an occasional bit of useful info
(coyote seen at X & Y streets yesterday at 06:30).
William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
A more perfect netnews:
o Automatic rejection of top-posted articles.
o Severe penalties for exceeding 72 characters.
o Automatic elision of "LOL", "ROTFL", "LMAO" etc.
o Life-time ban for using an emoji.
--bks
PMSL!]^
|
|
[automatic elision]
Ahh got it. Maybe time to bring those improvisational UUCP networks
back to life then? Why opt for the copy, when you can get the
original! ;)
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 21:43:50 +0200
D wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, Andy K. wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:32:01 -0000 (UTC)
George Musk wrote:
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >>>> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
Not for nothing, but Secure Scuttlebutt is a pretty cool "next gen
NNTP" option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Scuttlebutt
Long time since I heard about it, but doesn't it have scaling problems?
Maybe, but mainly it has discoverability problem. Unless you already
know a community you want to join, it's these days almost impossible
to find some public server/group/whatever.
It doesn't help that there are two concepts now - servers (old) and
rooms (new), and there seems to be a different invite/join process for
each.
I love SSB conceptually, since it's basically like Usenet in its UUCP beginnings (nodes syncing among each other periodically), but it has
teething problems.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Ahh got it. Maybe time to bring those improvisational UUCP networks
back to life then? Why opt for the copy, when you can get the
original! ;)
\o/
I'd join that game.
Out of curiousity, how did they do discovery in those ancient times?
Was it word of mouth, or did they have something more sophisticated?
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Out of curiousity, how did they do discovery in those ancient times?
Was it word of mouth, or did they have something more sophisticated?
<https://tldp.org/LDP/nag/node192.html>
I've no idea how uptodate this information still is.
My UUCP (over port 540 over Tor) experiments only connected some own
guinea pigs and I wired every neighbour into the config of every other
one. So a full graph. That sure won't fit "playing" with lots of
neighbours well.
When nobody wanted to join and(!) because of the config complexity, I switched to playing with SMTP directly over Tor, but that turned out to
be as lonely as my previous UUCP experiments.
UUCP can use a phonebook like file and route mail based on that. I
think we would need that if we want to connect more than a minuscule
amount of neighbours.
When UUCP is mentioned 3 times in a thread, typically someone else will
show up and paste a standard text snippet about NNCP into the thread.
Maybe NNCP really has some tricks UUCP now should learn, but I don't use
Go, so I was not in the mood for a closer look yet.
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
* All messages signed by author and originating server (supporting
reputation management)
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >>> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
[...]
* All messages signed by author and originating server (supporting
reputation management)
Can you elaborate on this? You'd like to bind each message to the author-public-key and his NNTP server? So that everyone who he is and
which server he used? (Can you give an example of how you'd do that?)
Interesting! Thank you very much for the information. With todays
compute power, I wouldn't discount the phone book method entirely. I
think it scales better than one might think. On the other hand,
keeping it up to date and distributing it might be more of a challenge perhaps.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Interesting! Thank you very much for the information. With todays
compute power, I wouldn't discount the phone book method entirely. I
think it scales better than one might think. On the other hand,
keeping it up to date and distributing it might be more of a challenge
perhaps.
I don't think everyone needs to have the full global phonebook.
Swapping VCards individually may be the way for fast updates.
Do keep in mind that you *do not* get the equivalent of the "local
press" (as in news papers). You don't get stories on what the local >government board is proposing (unless it also gores someone's ox, and
they then complain about their ox being gored by the local board on >nextdoor). Or other typical 'stories' you'd get from an actual local >newspaper (if it existed).
From what I've heard from folks around me that are members, what you
get is a local gossip channel, with an occasional bit of useful info
(coyote seen at X & Y streets yesterday at 06:30).
Ahh got it. Maybe time to bring those improvisational UUCP networks
back to life then? Why opt for the copy, when you can get the
original! ;)
\o/
I'd join that game.
Out of curiousity, how did they do discovery in those ancient times? Was
it word of mouth, or did they have something more sophisticated?
You called Henry Spencer on the phone and asked if there was someone in
your area that might give you a feed.
On 8/18/24 2:04 AM, D wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, The Real Bev wrote:
Don't have it myself. My other vice, besides usenet, is mastodon, where
I reside on a nice and uncensored instance with a healthy mix of nazis, libertarians, conservative cristians, people who just enjoy technology
or memes and so on. Just like I like it!
The good thing about usenet is that you 'meet' random people who are probably
interested in the same kinds of things that you are, aren't stupid, and
aren't a waste of time. Yeahyeahyeah, a lot of loons, but they're easy to >> weed out and there aren't as many as there used to be.
One mans loon is another mans hero! ;)
As it should be!
--
Cheers, Bev
The beatings will continue until morale improves
In article <v9ta00$2euft$4@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
Do keep in mind that you *do not* get the equivalent of the "local
press" (as in news papers). You don't get stories on what the local >government board is proposing (unless it also gores someone's ox, and
they then complain about their ox being gored by the local board on >nextdoor). Or other typical 'stories' you'd get from an actual local >newspaper (if it existed).
Yes, this is the problem.
From what I've heard from folks around me that are members, what you
get is a local gossip channel, with an occasional bit of useful info >(coyote seen at X & Y streets yesterday at 06:30).
Ours is mostly full of people complaining about other neighbors, or
sending out alerts saying that they saw a black person in the area.
Also incoherent political nonsense.
On 8/15/24 7:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:11:43 -0000 (UTC), Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:ObDevilsAdvocate: Usenet is the original social medium.
It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
supposed to work.
Usenet is not social media.
+1
And it gives us maximum control over what we see or avoid. No
pictures or -- god forbid -- reels, but that's a good thing. The bad
thing about reels is that they're addictive time-wasters.
Absolutely. And the centralization introduced by the web-based successors
(at least the proprietary ones) is a definite step back.
What bothers me is that otherwise smart people have replaced usenet
with Facebook. Maybe X too, but I don't read that even if I have an
account. How hard can it be to do all three? The 'social media' make
actual conversation, as opposed to post-it notes, difficult. I "know"
the people I've known on usenet since 1995. I've met some of them IRL.
FB people, unless friends of friends, are unknown strangers, just
groups of words without names.
A Contributor wrote:
+1
Without wishing to give offense:
I dislike the use of "+1", which I see as a web forum abomination.
I by far prefer the time honoured "<AOL>" (agreeing out loud)
or even "me too". [winking smiling "emoji" thing goes here].
Incidentally: in case you missed it, my headers do include X-Tongue-In-Cheek: Always
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:
A Contributor wrote:
+1
Without wishing to give offense:
I dislike the use of "+1", which I see as a web forum abomination.
I by far prefer the time honoured "<AOL>" (agreeing out loud)
or even "me too". [winking smiling "emoji" thing goes here].
I like followers, replies and likes *not* being counted here, but I see
no danger in a not summed up +1.
I prefer the minimalist =b (or d= or 2 thumbs version =b d=).
Are there other compact ASCII art variants?
In comp.misc Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote:
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >>>> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
[...]
* All messages signed by author and originating server (supporting
reputation management)
Can you elaborate on this? You'd like to bind each message to the
author-public-key and his NNTP server? So that everyone who he is and
which server he used? (Can you give an example of how you'd do that?)
One possibility (which would inherit most if not all of the pgp/gpg
'key' distribution problem):
1) each user generates a gpg key pair they use for 'usenet2' posts.
2) user uploads public key to some "central source" for others to
retreive from [1] for 'validation' purposes.
3) user installs private half of key in their client software
4) for each post, user's client software 'signs' the message using the private key, inserting the 'signature' into appropriate message
'headers' (note, there's a lot left unstated here, I'm spitballing, not protocol designing).
5) each server also performs step 1 but there may not need to be a step
2 for a server /if/ the collective set of servers are the 'central'
storage of keys and the protocol has a way to supply a public key for 'server/user X' on demand.
6) for each post, from any user of serverX, serverX further signs the
message using the serverX private key and inserts the appropriate
message headers containing the "server signature" (note that here one
most likely wants this server sig. to cover [and thus authenticate]
the user signature headers of the message).
The result, is that a recipient, should they choose to do so, can
verify that any given message was signed by serverX using the serverX
public key, and can further verify that the messge was signed by userX
of serverX via the userX of serverX public key.
[1] Do note that the 'central source' could be the collective set of 'usenet2' servers, provided there was a way to request the 'key' of
user 'X' from server 'Y'. In which case #2 is "uploads public key to
their 'usenet2' server.
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Just a thought experiment:
if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what >>> would it be like?
In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
[...]
* All messages signed by author and originating server (supporting
reputation management)
Can you elaborate on this? You'd like to bind each message to the author-public-key and his NNTP server? So that everyone who he is and
which server he used? (Can you give an example of how you'd do that?)
When I think of a user's network, I think of a kind of mailing lists via NNTP, but not like Gmane. I subscribe myself to a group in a server by getting an authorization from the server (for that group specifically).
I register that authorization in my client. Now I can post to that
group. Without an authorization, I'd only be able to read it. Other
servers can easily host that group for reading. Servers connected to
these other servers could not post to that group---only read it. If a
client is external (that is, connected to these other servers) would
ever like to post, the author would write his post and the client would directly connect to the group's original server, authenticate itself,
and then post.
In other words, let's not share responsibility. Each server controls
its groups---and lets others easily read it, archive it, disseminate
it. This way experts can have their own turf, let the world see their discussion without disturbing them.
How is membership controlled in the Linux kernel mailing list (for
example)? I don't know. I'd think someone must approve new members.
I'd like to keep an eye on those discussions via NNTP, but it seems I
cannot easily do that. Surely someone is archiving that in an NNTP
server somewhere. I'm on Eternal September. It should be an easy
matter for me; if it is not, then I think that's an opportunity for new
work.
uncensored plain text communications made public en masse by means
of unmoderated usenet nntp newsgroups is relatively primitive like
a well-seasoned cast iron skillet...if it ain't broke don't fix it
It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
supposed to work.
On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
supposed to work.
Usenet is not social media.
Grant Taylor:
Usenet is not social media.
Which of those words do you think does not apply?
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 08:25:39 -0700
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/18/24 2:04 AM, D wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, The Real Bev wrote:
Don't have it myself. My other vice, besides usenet, is mastodon, where
I reside on a nice and uncensored instance with a healthy mix of nazis,
libertarians, conservative cristians, people who just enjoy technology
or memes and so on. Just like I like it!
Fact-free echo chamber talk about e.g global warming?
The good thing about usenet is that you 'meet' random people who are probably
interested in the same kinds of things that you are, aren't stupid, and >>>> aren't a waste of time. Yeahyeahyeah, a lot of loons, but they're easy to >>>> weed out and there aren't as many as there used to be.
One mans loon is another mans hero! ;)
As it should be!
--
Cheers, Bev
The beatings will continue until morale improves
If counting is not an option, I'd compress that to b (good) and p
(bad). Don't think we can get smaller than that, except perhaps b
(good) and no response (bad). ;)
I don't know about that but, back in the day, "me too" was
deemed a usage typical of newbies.
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:
Incidentally: in case you missed it, my headers do include
X-Tongue-In-Cheek: Always
I noticed it a while ago, maybe I should tell GNUS to always show that
header by default. ;-D
My babel fish sometimes may miss some details. Maybe every other week
the default language in Usenet should be my native tongue... :-P
Without wishing to give offense:
I dislike the use of "+1", which I see as a web forum abomination.
I by far prefer the time honoured "<AOL>" (agreeing out loud)
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
Sn!pe:
I don't know about that but, back in the day, "me too" was
deemed a usage typical of newbies.
And for a good reason -- to encourage people to contribute
added value and to use arguments instead of "reactions" to
make their point:
Chris Hennessy (chenness@enterprise.powerup.com.au) wrote:
The brothers Usas and Senda, despairing of the state of UseNet, went
unto the mountain at the feet of Net.God. "Oh Net.God, there is
confusion and sorrow in your place of UseNet. The people worship false gods and knowst not your will."
Net.God spoke unto Usas and Senda. "YOU PLAYETH THE GAME BY NET.GOD'S LAWS, OR THE BAT WILL BE DEPOSITED IN THE LIGHTLESS PLACE."[...]
There is no Net.God but the One True Net.God and His Word is The Law.
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 18:52:33 +0100
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
Sn!pe:
I don't know about that but, back in the day, "me too" was
deemed a usage typical of newbies.
And for a good reason -- to encourage people to contribute
added value and to use arguments instead of "reactions" to
make their point:
Chris Hennessy (chenness@enterprise.powerup.com.au) wrote:
The brothers Usas and Senda, despairing of the state of UseNet, went unto the mountain at the feet of Net.God. "Oh Net.God, there is confusion and sorrow in your place of UseNet. The people worship false gods and knowst not your will."
Net.God spoke unto Usas and Senda. "YOU PLAYETH THE GAME BY NET.GOD'S LAWS, OR THE BAT WILL BE DEPOSITED IN THE LIGHTLESS PLACE."[...]
There is no Net.God but the One True Net.God and His Word is The Law.
IAWTP.
ITYM <AOL>
On 8/27/24 3:53 PM, Johanne Fairchild wrote:
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/15/24 7:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:That's quite right. I mean, I don't know anything about FB and the
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:11:43 -0000 (UTC), Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:ObDevilsAdvocate: Usenet is the original social medium.
It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is >>>>>>> supposed to work.
Usenet is not social media.
+1
And it gives us maximum control over what we see or avoid. No
pictures or -- god forbid -- reels, but that's a good thing. The bad
thing about reels is that they're addictive time-wasters.
Absolutely. And the centralization introduced by the web-based successors >>>> (at least the proprietary ones) is a definite step back.
What bothers me is that otherwise smart people have replaced usenet
with Facebook. Maybe X too, but I don't read that even if I have an
account. How hard can it be to do all three? The 'social media' make
actual conversation, as opposed to post-it notes, difficult. I "know"
the people I've known on usenet since 1995. I've met some of them IRL.
FB people, unless friends of friends, are unknown strangers, just
groups of words without names.
other, but they're all very much unsusceptible to conversation. So
they're totally time-wasters.
Unfortunately, it's pretty much all we've got now. Exceptions, of
course, but my long-term "friends" don't show up in the newsgroups at
all any more. Not even the loons.
I think we're doing our part.
If the world has moved on, that's fine.
I'll continue to use NNTP and perhaps other media that are focused on
writing and reading.
I don't care for images, sounds, video or whatever
and I also think that NNTP sort of supports all of that: people here
often add external URLs on which we download videos, images and
whatnot.
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/27/24 3:53 PM, Johanne Fairchild wrote:
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/15/24 7:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:That's quite right. I mean, I don't know anything about FB and the
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:11:43 -0000 (UTC), Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:ObDevilsAdvocate: Usenet is the original social medium.
It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is >>>>>>>> supposed to work.
Usenet is not social media.
+1
And it gives us maximum control over what we see or avoid. No
pictures or -- god forbid -- reels, but that's a good thing. The bad
thing about reels is that they're addictive time-wasters.
Absolutely. And the centralization introduced by the web-based successors >>>>> (at least the proprietary ones) is a definite step back.
What bothers me is that otherwise smart people have replaced usenet
with Facebook. Maybe X too, but I don't read that even if I have an
account. How hard can it be to do all three? The 'social media' make >>>> actual conversation, as opposed to post-it notes, difficult. I "know"
the people I've known on usenet since 1995. I've met some of them IRL. >>>> FB people, unless friends of friends, are unknown strangers, just
groups of words without names.
other, but they're all very much unsusceptible to conversation. So
they're totally time-wasters.
Unfortunately, it's pretty much all we've got now. Exceptions, of
course, but my long-term "friends" don't show up in the newsgroups at
all any more. Not even the loons.
Sometimes we need to wait. We've done what we could so far. The USENET
is still pretty good for conversation with the global community. I wish
the experts would come back at least for a little while. I believe the experts come here, find not much and they go away. I believe many have
done that. In comp.lang.lisp, for example, there are more than a few
experts there, but they only appear sometimes because there's not much
going on there.
I wrote an NNTP server for a small semi-closed group. Perhaps the
openness is not a very good thing anymore. But I do think people still
want the all-connected-type of application these days, even at the
detriment of conversation---which is absurd. I don't think good
conversation can be carried out this way. But an NNTP server, say,
could have a phone app that's good for reading only. Have you tried the Hacker News apps? They let you read the comments just fine. The same
could be done for an NNTP server, but I never found a decent phone news reader.
I think we're doing our part. If the world has moved on, that's fine.
I'll continue to use NNTP and perhaps other media that are focused on
writing and reading. I don't care for images, sounds, video or whatever
and I also think that NNTP sort of supports all of that: people here
often add external URLs on which we download videos, images and whatnot.
The highest expert ratio I have generally found on moderated
mailinglists.
I've also detected a few on usenet as well, so they are here, you just
need to learn how to detect them. ;)
If the world has moved on, that's fine.
Maybe. I see not much fun New Fedistan (Mastodon & friends).
Generation 10 second attention span may see it differently.
I'll continue to use NNTP and perhaps other media that are focused on
writing and reading.
I like those gateways of mailing-lists and other stuff to NNTP. We
should have even more stuff in/via NNTP.
I don't care for images, sounds, video or whatever
Depending on the newsreader it may work. GNUS already has problems with animated GIFs, but if TB uses FF's HTML renderer, much more may be
possible. There should be more experiments with this in other
hierarchies or contexts.
and I also think that NNTP sort of supports all of that: people here
often add external URLs on which we download videos, images and
whatnot.
That's how it will stay in text only groups. But NNTP is not only Big8
and their rules and with MIME a lot more is doable. The client is the
limit.
\o/ I even get XKCD via NNTP. \o/ Thanks feedbase! \o/
but I never found a decent phone news reader.
I've also detected a few on usenet as well, so they are here, you just
need to learn how to detect them. ;)
Use a dowsing rod? A pendulum?
On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
supposed to work.
So what.
Usenet is not social media.
On 8/8/24 08:21, D wrote:
uncensored plain text communications made public en masse by means
of unmoderated usenet nntp newsgroups is relatively primitive like
a well-seasoned cast iron skillet...if it ain't broke don't fix it
The thing is, Usenet can be moderated and is in some ways.
Every server operator has the choice if they want to accept an article
or not based on any criteria they want to search for.
There are also people who send cancels after articles are published and
some Usenet administrators choose to honor those cancels.
That's a form of moderation.
Usenet can be -> is moderated.
Usenet is not moderated in the same way that most social media / news is >moderated.
How is membership controlled in the Linux kernel mailing
list (for example)? I don't know. I'd think someone
must approve new members. I'd like to keep an eye on
those discussions via NNTP, but it seems I cannot easily
do that. Surely someone is archiving that in an NNTP
server somewhere. I'm on Eternal September. It should
be an easy matter for me; if it is not, then I think
that's an opportunity for new work.
A read-only NNTP server for the lore.kernel.org mailing
lists is here:
nntp.lore.kernel.org
Computer Nerd Kev to Johanne Fairchild:
How is membership controlled in the Linux kernel mailing
list (for example)? I don't know. I'd think someone
must approve new members. I'd like to keep an eye on
those discussions via NNTP, but it seems I cannot easily
do that. Surely someone is archiving that in an NNTP
server somewhere. I'm on Eternal September. It should
be an easy matter for me; if it is not, then I think
that's an opportunity for new work.
A read-only NNTP server for the lore.kernel.org mailing
lists is here:
nntp.lore.kernel.org
Many if not all Linux kernel mailing lists are available for
both reading and posting via NNTP on Gmane.
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
supposed to work.
Usenet is not social media.
ObDevilsAdvocate: Usenet is the original social medium.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024, yeti wrote:
If the world has moved on, that's fine.
Maybe. I see not much fun New Fedistan (Mastodon & friends).
Generation 10 second attention span may see it differently.
This is very interesting. I thought about this the other day, and came to
the conclusion that for me, mastodon, is a worse usenet. More limits,
slower, and with worse content and severely lacking in the blocking and filter department, but at the end of the day, pretty much the same.
Isn't Mastadon supposed to be the "open source twatter"?
If so, does it allow long form content, or is it intentionally crippled
to the same "brain fart" size message units as twatter?
News readers had decades of evolution more than New Fedistan clients.
News readers had decades of evolution more than New
Fedistan clients.
This is very true, and I'd bet if we could time travel
back to the way distant past, that many of the very useful
features we take for granted in Usenet clients today would
not be present in those early clients. The features got
added when the irritation level of whatever caused the add
exceeded the effort of writing the code for the additional
feature.
Mastadon clients are in their 'very young child' age range
of evolution. Maybe in 30 years (assuming Mastadon's
still a thing in 30 years) they will have learned from
Usenet and added the useful Usenet client features.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:22:34 +0042, yeti wrote:
I've also detected a few on usenet as well, so they are here, you just
need to learn how to detect them. ;)
Use a dowsing rod? A pendulum?
Simple: just ask an expert on detecting experts.
If I think my newsreader is acting up today or isn't showing a
certain feature (like grabbing stuff via Message-ID), I can just
hop on telnet to the news server and see what's really coming
from the server or call up the missing feature directly. With a
binary format, that wouldn’t be as straightforward!
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
* Binary serialization rather than the complex text-based structures we
have in NNTP and the Usenet article format.
When I read through all this stuff, it seems like every change
has just as many pros as cons. Take the point above, for instance.
If I think my newsreader is acting up today or isn't showing a
certain feature (like grabbing stuff via Message-ID), I can just
hop on telnet to the news server and see what's really coming
from the server or call up the missing feature directly. With a
binary format, that wouldn’t be as straightforward!
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
* Machine-readable format specification to reduce ambiguity.
Wikipedia:
|The "second-system effect" or "second-system syndrome" is the
|tendency of small, elegant, and successful systems to be
|succeeded by over-engineered, bloated systems, due to
|inflated expectations and overconfidence.
, see also:
"Things You Should Never Do, Part I". (April 6, 2000) - Joel Spolsky
.
I mean something like ASN.1 ...
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 19:13:00 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
I mean something like ASN.1 ...
Bloody hell.
Where’s the garlic ...
ASN.1 is given as an example because it’s a well-known example of an interface definition language, not because I’m suggesting using it, as anyone capable of reading to the end of a sentence can tell.
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
If I think my newsreader is acting up today or isn't showing a\o/ ____( rlwrap nc newsserver 119 )
certain feature (like grabbing stuff via Message-ID), I can just
hop on telnet to the news server and see what's really coming
from the server or call up the missing feature directly. With a
binary format, that wouldn’t be as straightforward!
Digitally signing all content makes it trivial for autocratic regimes
to ascribe everything you've ever said online.
Rich to yeti:
News readers had decades of evolution more than New
Fedistan clients.
This is very true, and I'd bet if we could time travel
back to the way distant past, that many of the very useful
features we take for granted in Usenet clients today would
not be present in those early clients. The features got
added when the irritation level of whatever caused the add
exceeded the effort of writing the code for the additional
feature.
Mastadon clients are in their 'very young child' age range
of evolution. Maybe in 30 years (assuming Mastadon's
still a thing in 30 years) they will have learned from
Usenet and added the useful Usenet client features.
I fear it will never come to pass, because modern platforms
are philosphically, ideologically, and aesthetically
incompatible with Usenet. The are designed to conform to
modern UX trends that promote a /negative entry threshold/,
an entry dip if you will, and substitute tawdriness for
elegance.
Sometimes we need to wait. We've done what we could so far. The USENET
is still pretty good for conversation with the global community. I wish
the experts would come back at least for a little while. I believe the
experts come here, find not much and they go away. I believe many have
done that. In comp.lang.lisp, for example, there are more than a few
experts there, but they only appear sometimes because there's not much
going on there.
The highest expert ratio I have generally found on moderated
mailinglists. I've also detected a few on usenet as well, so they are
here, you just need to learn how to detect them. ;)
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> writes:
[...]
\o/ I even get XKCD via NNTP. \o/ Thanks feedbase! \o/
How do I get that? :)
Johanne Fairchild:
but I never found a decent phone news reader.
HotdogEd is the best I have seen, in spite of its poor
maintaitenance and non-trivial configuration:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details/HotdogEd_Editor?id=com.pushkin.hotdoged>
\o/ I even get XKCD via NNTP. \o/ Thanks feedbase! \o/